Pre-Employment Screening

PRE-EMPLOYMENT SCREENING REPORT

[CANDIDATE FULL NAME - POSITION / REQUISITION REF]

The Pre-Employment Screening Report is the standard pre-hire vetting product for a defined role: it confirms the candidate is who they claim, is eligible to work, holds the credentials and history they assert, and carries no role-disqualifying derogatory record - each finding verified, graded, and adjudicated against a documented suitability matrix with an explicit nexus to the position. Unlike the Standard Subject Dossier, this product is designed to support an employment eligibility decision and is therefore built to the FCRA/EEOC compliance regime (consent, individualized adjudication, adverse-action process). It does not carry the exhaustive depth, reputational/source-of-wealth scrutiny, or global reach of an Senior-Appointment Background Investigation; residential-proximity/family-safety vetting of Domestic & Household Staff Vetting; the integrity focus of Vendor & Third-Party Integrity Vetting; or any ongoing post-hire watch (Continuous Re-Vetting & Insider-Threat Monitoring). Where those needs surface, flag them as RFIs in §15 - do not perform them here.

---

Document Control

Field	Value
Report Reference	[REF-YYYY-###]
Date of Report	[YYYY-MM-DD]
Reporting Period / As-Of Date	[YYYY-MM-DD]
Classification / Handling	[CONFIDENTIAL - HR/CLIENT EYES ONLY / TLP:AMBER]
Client / Employer	[CLIENT NAME]
Requesting Party	[HIRING MANAGER / HR CONTACT / ENGAGEMENT REF]
Position / Requisition	[ROLE TITLE - REQ #]
Screening Package / Tier	[Standard / Enhanced / Role-specific package ref]
Prepared By	[ANALYST NAME / ID]
Reviewed By	[REVIEWER NAME / ID]
Approving Officer	[APPROVER NAME / ID]
Version	[1.0]
Distribution	[NAMED RECIPIENTS]

Handling & Legal Caveat

Handling: [Classification/TLP]. Disseminate only to the named authorized recipients above (typically HR / the designated adjudicator). Reproduction or onward sharing prohibited without originator approval. Contains sensitive personal data - store and transmit per the client data-processing agreement.

Permissible purpose & FCRA status (READ FIRST): This report was prepared for the permissible purpose of evaluating [CANDIDATE] for employment, with the candidate’s prior written authorization (see §6). When used to make a U.S. employment decision, this report constitutes a “consumer report” and, where furnished for a fee by [FIRM] as a consumer reporting agency (CRA), is governed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.). Both the end-user (employer) and the CRA carry distinct FCRA obligations. This is the inverse of an investigative-intelligence dossier and must be handled accordingly.

Pre-engagement requirements (must be satisfied before collection): (1) a clear and conspicuous standalone written disclosure that a consumer report may be obtained; (2) the candidate’s written authorization (FCRA § 1681b(b)(2)); (3) where investigative-type interviews are used, the additional investigative consumer report notice (§ 1681d). Evidence of (1)–(2) is recorded in §6 and Appendix A.

Adverse-action process (must be followed before any decision adverse to the candidate): pre-adverse-action notice + a copy of this report + the CFPB “A Summary of Your Rights Under the FCRA” → a reasonable waiting period (commonly ~5 business days) for dispute → adverse-action notice with CRA contact and reinvestigation rights. See §21.

Equal-opportunity & fair-chance law: Adjudication applies an individualized assessment (EEOC guidance / Title VII - nature and gravity of the conduct, time elapsed, and nexus to the specific role) and complies with applicable “ban-the-box”/fair-chance, salary-history, and record-lookback limits (incl. FCRA § 1681c reporting restrictions and stricter state caps, e.g., CA ICRAA/CCRAA). Protected-class information is never a screening criterion.

Non-U.S. candidates / data protection: Where the candidate or records are outside the U.S., screening complies with local law and GDPR (incl. Art. 9/10 limits on criminal and special-category data); some checks are restricted or prohibited by jurisdiction. Processed under [legal basis]; retained per [RETENTION REF].

Not legal advice: Compliance configuration (permissible checks, lookback, adjudication thresholds) must be confirmed with client counsel for each jurisdiction. Findings are time-sensitive; verify before any consequential action.

Candidate Snapshot

Field	Value
Full Legal Name	[Name]
Also Known As (AKA)	[Maiden / prior legal names / transliterations]
Position Applied For	[Title / Department]
Identity Verification Confidence	[Confirmed / Probable / Possible / Unresolved]
Right-to-Work Status	[Confirmed / Pending / Not established]
Components Completed	[e.g., ID, employment, education, criminal, sanctions - see §4]
Material Discrepancies	[Count]
Material Red Flags	[Count by severity: Crit / High / Med / Low]
Overall Suitability Recommendation	[CLEAR / CLEAR WITH NOTES / REVIEW REQUIRED / NOT ESTABLISHED - see §18]

---

Table of Contents

Page numbers populate on export to Word/PDF.

1. Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)
2. Executive Summary
3. Screening Scope & Package Components
4. Screening Requirements (the questions this screening answers)
5. Candidate Identification & Identity Verification
6. Consent, Authorization & Permissible Purpose
7. Employment History Verification
8. Education, Credential & Professional-License Verification
9. Criminal & Court Records Check
10. Financial & Civil Records (role-justified)
11. Sanctions, Watchlist, PEP & Global Screening
12. Regulatory & Sector-Specific Screening
13. Adverse Media & Online / Social-Media Screening
14. Résumé / Application Discrepancy Analysis
15. Verified Findings Summary
16. Red Flag & Notable Indicators Summary
17. Collection Gaps & Outstanding Requirements (RFIs)
18. Adjudication & Suitability Assessment
19. Key Assumptions Check
20. Recommendations
21. FCRA Adverse-Action Guidance
22. Sources & Methodology
23. Appendices

---

1. Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)

2–3 sentences. Lead with the suitability recommendation and the single most decision-relevant finding. Written so an adjudicator who reads nothing else is correctly informed and knows the next step.

• Suitability recommendation: [CLEAR / CLEAR WITH NOTES / REVIEW REQUIRED / NOT ESTABLISHED.]
• Most decision-relevant finding: [The one fact that most drives the recommendation.]
• Required next step: [Proceed / individualized review / initiate adverse-action sequence per §21 / obtain candidate clarification.]

2. Executive Summary

Engagement Background

Who requested the screening, for what role, under what package/tier, and the decision it supports.

[Narrative.]

Verification Status Overview

3–5 sentences summarizing what was confirmed, what diverged from the candidate’s representations, and what remains open. No finding appears later that is not summarized here.

[Narrative.]

Identity & Consent Statement

One paragraph: to what confidence the candidate was uniquely identified, and confirmation that valid disclosure and written authorization are on file (§6) - collection does not proceed without it.

[Narrative - references §5 and §6.]

3. Screening Scope & Package Components

State exactly which components were authorized and performed, the depth, jurisdictions, lookback windows, and any legal/contractual constraints. Components not run are listed so the record is unambiguous.

Component	In Scope	Depth / Lookback / Jurisdictions	Status
Identity & right-to-work	[Y/N]	[ ]	[Complete / Partial / Not run]
Employment verification	[Y/N]	[# years / # employers]	[ ]
Education & credentials	[Y/N]	[Highest / all claimed]	[ ]
Professional licenses	[Y/N]	[ ]	[ ]
Criminal & court records	[Y/N]	[Jurisdictions / lookback per law]	[ ]
Financial / civil (role-justified)	[Y/N]	[Basis for inclusion]	[ ]
Sanctions / watchlist / PEP	[Y/N]	[ ]	[ ]
Sector-specific (MVR / healthcare / financial / etc.)	[Y/N]	[ ]	[ ]
Adverse media / online	[Y/N]	[Protected-class-blind]	[ ]

Constraints bounding this screening: [Legal (jurisdictional prohibitions, lookback caps), access (records unavailable), candidate-cooperation, time, language.]

4. Screening Requirements

The discrete questions this screening was commissioned to answer (the screening analogue of PIRs). Each maps to components above; answer + evidence + confidence + residual gap for each.

SR-1: Identity & Right to Work - Is the candidate who they claim, and legally eligible to work in [JURISDICTION]?

Assessment	Supporting Evidence	Confidence
[CONFIRMED / NOT ESTABLISHED]	[ ]	[HIGH/MOD/LOW]

Residual gap: [ ]

SR-2: Stated History - Do the candidate’s employment and education representations match the record?

Assessment	Supporting Evidence	Confidence
[MATCH / DISCREPANCIES NOTED / UNVERIFIABLE]	[ ]	[ ]

Residual gap: [ ]

SR-3: Disqualifying Record - Is there a criminal, regulatory, sanctions, or other record with a nexus to this role?

Assessment	Supporting Evidence	Confidence
[NONE IDENTIFIED / RECORD(S) - SEE §9–§12 / UNRESOLVED]	[ ]	[ ]

Residual gap: [ ]

SR-4: Integrity & Disclosure - Did the candidate disclose accurately and cooperate (vs. concealment / falsification)?

Assessment	Supporting Evidence	Confidence
[CONSISTENT / OMISSIONS / FALSIFICATION INDICATED]	[ ]	[ ]

Residual gap: [ ]

(Add role-specific SRs as the position warrants - e.g., financial-fitness for fiduciary roles, driving record for driver roles.)

Screening Requirement Summary Matrix

SR	Question (brief)	Result	Confidence
SR-1	Identity & right to work	[ ]	[H/M/L]
SR-2	Stated history matches	[ ]	[H/M/L]
SR-3	Disqualifying record	[ ]	[H/M/L]
SR-4	Integrity & disclosure	[ ]	[H/M/L]

5. Candidate Identification & Identity Verification

Establish that every downstream record belongs to THIS candidate. Wrong-person screening is the catastrophic failure mode (and a legal liability) - identity confidence is explicit and evidence-based, never assumed from a name match. Use candidate-provided identifiers (verified against authoritative documents/databases) to bind records.

Verified Identity

Field	Value	Source / Document	Grade
Full Legal Name	[ ]	[Gov ID / authoritative]	[A–F / 1–6]
Prior / Other Names (maiden, legal changes)	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]
Date of Birth	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]
National ID / SSN (verified, redacted)	[Last 4 / status only]	[Trace/validation method]	[ ]
Address History (lookback)	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]
Contact Selectors (phone/email)	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]

Right-to-Work / Work-Authorization

Confirm legal eligibility to work in the hiring jurisdiction. In the U.S. this references the employer’s I-9 / E-Verify process - note that I-9 employment-eligibility verification is the employer’s legal responsibility; state what this screening confirms vs. what the employer must complete.

Item	Finding	Basis	Status
Work authorization	[ ]	[ ]	[Confirmed / Employer to complete I-9 / Not established]
Identity-document validity	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]

Identity Resolution & Disambiguation

Candidate Record Set	Distinguishing Identifiers Used	Disposition	Confidence
[Candidate - resolved]	[DOB + address history + employer]	Candidate	[Confirmed/Probable/Possible]
[Same-name record #1]	[Differing identifiers]	Excluded	[ ]

Identity verification confidence: [Confirmed / Probable / Possible / Unresolved] - [one-line justification].

6. Consent, Authorization & Permissible Purpose

The compliance gate. Collection does not begin until valid disclosure and authorization are on file. This section is the auditable record that FCRA pre-conditions were met - it is unique to consent-based screening products and is mandatory.

Requirement	Status	Date	Evidence Ref (Appendix A)
Standalone written disclosure provided (FCRA § 1681b(b)(2))	[Y/N]	[ ]	[ ]
Candidate written authorization obtained	[Y/N]	[ ]	[ ]
Investigative consumer report notice (if interviews used, § 1681d)	[Y/N / N/A]	[ ]	[ ]
State/jurisdiction-specific notices (e.g., CA, NY, MN, OK)	[Y/N / N/A]	[ ]	[ ]
Scope of authorization (components/lookback consented to)	[Summary]	[ ]	[ ]

Permissible-purpose statement: [Confirm the screening was performed solely for the authorized employment-evaluation purpose and within the consented scope.]

If any pre-condition is unmet, screening is halted and the gap is recorded here - findings collected without valid authorization are not reportable.

7. Employment History Verification

Verify the candidate’s stated employment against authoritative sources (employer/HR, payroll-verification services, documentary evidence). Distinguish verified from claimed; record method and confidence per entry. Note that some employers confirm dates/title only.

Employer	Position (Claimed)	Dates (Claimed)	Verified?	Verified Detail	Method / Source	Grade
[ ]	[ ]	[ ]	[Verified/Partial/Unable/Contradicted]	[Dates/title/eligibility-for-rehire as provided]	[ ]	[A–F/1–6]

Employment gaps & anomalies: [Unexplained gaps, overlapping employment, unverifiable employers (defunct/foreign), reason-for-leaving discrepancies - flagged, not concluded.]

8. Education, Credential & Professional-License Verification

Confirm claimed degrees, credentials, and licenses with the issuing institution/authority. Screen for diploma-mill / unaccredited sources and credential inflation.

Education

Institution	Credential (Claimed)	Dates / Year	Verified?	Verified Detail	Source	Grade
[ ]	[Degree/major]	[ ]	[Verified/Partial/Unable/Contradicted]	[Degree conferred Y/N, dates]	[Registrar/clearinghouse]	[ ]

Accreditation / diploma-mill check: [Issuing body accredited? Any indicators of a degree mill or purchased credential.]

Professional Licenses & Certifications

License / Certification	Issuing Authority	Number	Status	Expiry	Disciplinary History	Grade
[ ]	[ ]	[ ]	[Active/Lapsed/Revoked/Not found]	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]

9. Criminal & Court Records Check

Search authorized jurisdictions within the legally permissible lookback. Distinguish arrest vs. charge vs. conviction vs. dismissal; report only what law permits to be reported and used. Each entry dated and graded. Adjudication of relevance happens in §18, not here - this section is the record, not the decision.

Criminal Records

Jurisdiction	Case / Matter	Offense Type	Disposition	Date	Reportable? (per § 1681c / state caps)	Grade
[ ]	[ ]	[Felony/Misd.]	[Convicted/Dismissed/Pending]	[ ]	[Y/N - basis]	[ ]

Civil Litigation (role-justified)

Jurisdiction	Case	Role	Status	Relevance to Position	Grade
[ ]	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]

Records-handling note: [Confirm exclusion of non-reportable items (e.g., expunged/sealed records, items beyond lookback, arrests-without-conviction where prohibited) and adherence to fair-chance sequencing.]

10. Financial & Civil Records (role-justified)

Credit and financial-fitness checks are included ONLY where the role legally justifies them (e.g., fiduciary, cash-handling, senior financial authority) AND jurisdiction permits - several states restrict employment credit checks. State the justification explicitly; if not justified, mark “Not performed - no role nexus.”

Inclusion basis: [Role nexus justifying financial review / “Not performed - no role nexus”.]

Indicator	Finding	Source	Reportable?	Relevance
Bankruptcy (public)	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]
Liens / judgments	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]
Employment credit summary (where lawful)	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]

11. Sanctions, Watchlist, PEP & Global Screening

Screen the candidate against sanctions, watchlist, and (role-dependent) PEP sources, and against relevant jurisdictions for global candidates. Report match quality; near-matches are disambiguated, not asserted.

List / Database	Date Screened	Result	Match Quality
OFAC SDN / Consolidated	[YYYY-MM-DD]	[Clear/Hit/Near-match]	[ ]
EU / UK / UN Sanctions	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]
Global law-enforcement / Interpol (public)	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]
Debarment (e.g., SAM.gov / equivalent)	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]
PEP (role-dependent)	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]

Screening assessment: [Any confirmed match, basis, and confidence; near-match disposition.]

12. Regulatory & Sector-Specific Screening

Checks specific to the role/sector. Include only those applicable; state the trigger. Examples: motor-vehicle record (drivers), healthcare exclusion lists (OIG-LEIE / SAM), securities registration & disciplinary (financial roles), sex-offender registry where legally permitted and role-relevant, child/vulnerable-adult clearances for relevant roles.

Check	Trigger (role basis)	Date	Result	Source	Grade
[ ]	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]

13. Adverse Media & Online / Social-Media Screening

Open-source adverse media and (where authorized and compliant) online/social-media review. Methodology is protected-class-blind: collect only job-relevant conduct; do not record or consider protected characteristics. Distinguish substantiated reporting from allegation/opinion; grade reliability.

Source / Outlet	Date	Substance (job-relevant)	Reliability (A–F)	Credibility (1–6)
[ ]	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]

Methodology safeguard: [State the protected-class-blind protocol used and that social-media review (if performed) was authorized, job-related, and documented.]

14. Résumé / Application Discrepancy Analysis

The integrity core of the screening: where the candidate’s representations diverge from the verified record. Each discrepancy classified by materiality and whether it indicates error vs. omission vs. deliberate falsification.

Aspect	Claimed / Application	Verified Reality	Discrepancy Type	Materiality
[Title / dates / degree / license]	[ ]	[ ]	[Match / Minor variance / Material omission / Falsification]	[Material / Minor]

Discrepancy assessment: [Pattern across discrepancies - isolated error vs. systematic misrepresentation; relevance to integrity-sensitive roles.]

15. Verified Findings Summary

Consolidated register of discrete findings with verification status, confidence, and materiality to the hiring decision.

#	Finding	Status	Confidence	Materiality to Decision
F-1	[ ]	[Verified / Unverified / Contradicted]	[H/M/L]	[Material / Minor]
F-2	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]

16. Red Flag & Notable Indicators Summary

Concerns surfaced by the screening, typed and severity-ranked. Flags are indicators for the adjudicator’s attention - not adjudicated decisions (adjudication is §18).

#	Indicator	Domain	Type	Severity
1	[ ]	[Identity/History/Criminal/Financial/Regulatory/Integrity]	[See definitions]	[CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]

Type definitions:

• DISCREPANCY - claimed vs. verified mismatch (resume/application).
• DEROGATORY - verified adverse record (criminal/regulatory/financial) within reportable scope.
• FALSIFICATION - indicators of fabricated credential, false identity, or concealment.
• ELIGIBILITY - right-to-work / licensing / mandatory-clearance not established.
• INTEGRITY - pattern suggesting dishonesty material to a trust-sensitive role.
• UNRESOLVED - material item that could not be verified within scope.

Severity rollup: Critical: [#] | High: [#] | Medium: [#] | Low: [#]

17. Collection Gaps & Outstanding Requirements (RFIs)

What could not be obtained or verified, its effect on the recommendation, and how to close it. Needs exceeding this product’s scope (executive-depth background, household vetting, ongoing monitoring) are routed here as RFIs to the appropriate deliverable.

Gap / RFI	Impact on Recommendation	Recommended Action / Routed Product	Priority
[ ]	[ ]	[Re-contact source / candidate clarification / “Executive Background Investigation”]	[HIGH/MED/LOW]

Verification pending: [Requests submitted but not returned as of the as-of date - and how they bound the recommendation.]

18. Adjudication & Suitability Assessment

The decision core. For each material adverse finding, apply an individualized assessment with explicit nexus to THIS role (EEOC Green factors: nature/gravity of the conduct; time elapsed since the conduct/completion of sentence; nature of the position). Adjudication is consistent, documented, and applied uniformly - not ad hoc. The recommendation is a suitability disposition, NOT a probabilistic estimate.

Adjudication Matrix

Finding (ref)	Nature / Gravity	Time Elapsed	Nexus to Role	Mitigating Factors	Disposition
[F-# / flag]	[ ]	[ ]	[Direct / Indirect / None]	[Candidate explanation, rehabilitation, age at time]	[No bearing / Note / Disqualifying for this role]

Suitability Recommendation

Overall: [CLEAR / CLEAR WITH NOTES / REVIEW REQUIRED / NOT ESTABLISHED]

Rationale (3–5 sentences): tie the disposition to the adjudicated findings and the role. Where “Review Required” or adverse, state precisely which finding(s) drive it and that the final hiring decision rests with the employer following any required individualized assessment and the §21 adverse-action process.

[Narrative.]

Disposition definitions:

• CLEAR - identity and right-to-work confirmed; representations verified; no reportable adverse finding with role nexus.
• CLEAR WITH NOTES - suitable; minor discrepancies/indicators recorded for the employer’s awareness, none disqualifying.
• REVIEW REQUIRED - material finding(s) requiring employer individualized assessment / candidate input before decision; initiate §21 if proceeding adversely.
• NOT ESTABLISHED - identity, right-to-work, or a mandatory requirement could not be verified within scope.

19. Key Assumptions Check

The load-bearing assumptions behind the screening, made explicit. Identity-binding assumptions are the highest-impact: if the candidate was mis-resolved, every downstream finding is suspect.

#	Assumption	Basis	Confidence	Impact if Wrong
A-1	[e.g., records belong to the resolved candidate]	[Identifiers used]	[H/M/L]	[Entire screening invalid]
A-2	[e.g., candidate-provided identifiers are accurate]	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]
A-3	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]

20. Recommendations

Actionable and tied to findings. Separate the suitability recommendation (above) from process/next-step actions.

For the Hiring Authority / Adjudicator

• [Recommendation - proceed / individualized review / conditional offer pending closure of gap.]
• [Recommendation.]

Recommended Next Actions

Priority	Action	Owner	Est. Turnaround	Resolves
1	[e.g., candidate clarification on §14 discrepancy]	[HR / Firm]	[ ]	[Which open item]
2	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]

21. FCRA Adverse-Action Guidance

If the employer intends to take action adverse to the candidate (decline, rescind offer, etc.) based wholly or partly on this report, the FCRA two-step process is mandatory. This section is guidance for the employer/end-user; the firm/CRA supports the required disclosures and any reinvestigation.

Step 1 - Pre-adverse action (before the decision is final): provide the candidate with (a) a pre-adverse-action notice, (b) a copy of this report, and (c) the CFPB “A Summary of Your Rights Under the FCRA” (and any state equivalent). Allow a reasonable waiting period (commonly ~5 business days) for the candidate to review and dispute.

Step 2 - Adverse action (after the waiting period, if proceeding): provide the adverse-action notice including the CRA’s name, address, and phone, a statement that the CRA did not make the decision and cannot explain it, and notice of the candidate’s right to a free report and to dispute the accuracy/completeness with the CRA.

Step	Required Item	Provided By	Status / Date
Pre-adverse	Notice + report copy + Summary of Rights	[Employer]	[ ]
Waiting period	[~5 business days] observed	[Employer]	[ ]
Dispute / reinvestigation (if raised)	Reinvestigation within statutory window	[Firm/CRA]	[ ]
Adverse	Adverse-action notice + CRA details	[Employer]	[ ]

Confirm exact notice content, waiting period, and any additional state/local requirements with counsel - several jurisdictions impose stricter timing and content rules.

22. Sources & Methodology

Collection & Verification Methods

Methods employed (authoritative-database verification; direct employer/institution confirmation; public-records search; sanctions/watchlist screening; compliant online review). State that screening was consent-based, scoped to the authorization, and that no covert, pretextual, or unlawful methods were used.

• [Method]
• [Method]

Source Register

Every material datum is traceable to a graded source.

Ref	Source	Type	Reliability (A–F)	Credibility (1–6)	Date Accessed
S-1	[ ]	[Primary/Secondary/Database]	[ ]	[ ]	[YYYY-MM-DD]

Source Reliability Scale (Admiralty, A–F)

Grade	Meaning
A	Completely reliable
B	Usually reliable
C	Fairly reliable
D	Not usually reliable
E	Unreliable
F	Reliability cannot be judged

Information Credibility Scale (Admiralty, 1–6)

Grade	Meaning
1	Confirmed by other sources
2	Probably true
3	Possibly true
4	Doubtful
5	Improbable
6	Truth cannot be judged

Estimative Probability (Likelihood) Lexicon - ICD 203

Used where the report expresses a forward-looking likelihood (e.g., integrity-risk judgments). Suitability dispositions in §18 are adjudications, not probabilities, and are not drawn from this scale.

Term	Range
Almost no chance / remote	01–05%
Very unlikely / highly improbable	05–20%
Unlikely / improbable	20–45%
Roughly even chance	45–55%
Likely / probable	55–80%
Very likely / highly probable	80–95%
Almost certain / nearly certain	95–99%

Analytic Confidence Scale (evidence base)

Level	Criteria
HIGH	Multiple independent, reliable sources; primary/authoritative documentation; no significant contradiction.
MODERATE	Partial corroboration; some gaps; minor unresolved inconsistencies that are explainable.
LOW	Single or uncorroborated source; significant gaps; plausible alternatives remain open.

Identity Verification Confidence

Level	Meaning
Confirmed	Multiple authoritative identifiers bind all records to one candidate.
Probable	Strong identifier match; minor unresolved overlap.
Possible	Partial match; same-name risk not fully excluded.
Unresolved	Records cannot be reliably bound to the candidate.

Methodological note: Likelihood (probability of an event) and analytic confidence (strength of the evidence base) are distinct and never combined in one sentence (ICD 203). Verified record is distinguished from candidate-claimed representation throughout. Adjudication (§18) applies a documented, uniformly applied individualized-assessment standard with explicit role nexus.

23. Appendices

• Appendix A - Consent & Authorization Record: [Signed disclosure, written authorization, notices provided - dates and copies/refs.]
• Appendix B - Identifier Index: [Names, prior names, verified identifiers (redacted), referenced entities.]
• Appendix C - Verification Evidence: [Employer/institution confirmation records, license lookups, screening result captures - keyed to the source register.]
• Appendix D - Records & Chain of Custody: [Preserved records, hashes, capture timestamps and URLs.]
• Appendix E - Adjudication Standard: [The client’s documented suitability matrix / adjudication guidelines applied.]
• Appendix F - Candidate Dispute & Reinvestigation Log: [Any disputes raised and their resolution.]
• Appendix G - Glossary & Abbreviations.
• Appendix H - Revision History: [Version, date, author, change summary.]

---

END OF REPORT

This Pre-Employment Screening Report was prepared on a consent basis for the authorized employment-evaluation purpose stated herein. Where used to make a U.S. employment decision it constitutes a consumer report under the FCRA; the employer/end-user must follow the adverse-action process (§21) before any decision adverse to the candidate. This product applies an individualized, role-nexus adjudication standard and does not, by itself, make the hiring decision. It is not legal advice; confirm jurisdictional compliance with counsel. Findings are time-sensitive and should be independently verified before any consequential action.

Field	Value
Prepared By	[ANALYST NAME]
Reviewed By	[REVIEWER NAME]
Approving Officer	[APPROVER NAME]
Date	[YYYY-MM-DD]
Version	[X.X]

Model wiring

Generated from cell frontmatter at publish time.

• Produces for: OSINT-012
• Related: OSINT-008, OSINT-009, OSINT-010